Oscar Pistorius to appeal to South Africa's highest court

PRETORIA, South Africa (AP) — Oscar Pistorius will try to appeal his murder conviction in South Africa's highest court, his lawyer said Tuesday, possibly extending a legal battle that began nearly three years ago when the double-amputee Olympian shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp to death in his home.

As Pistorius sat in the dock in a wood-paneled courtroom, defense lawyer Barry Roux unveiled the plan to take the sensational murder case to an 11-judge court known for abolishing the death penalty and affirming basic human rights after the 1994 end of white minority rule in South Africa

If the Constitutional Court chooses not to hear the case, Pistorius will be back in a lower court on April 18 for the start of a sentencing process, meaning he will remain under house arrest under bail terms announced Tuesday for at least the next several months.

Pistorius had already been living under restrictions at his uncle's home in Pretoria since October after serving one year of a five-year prison sentence for manslaughter. That conviction, however, was thrown out last week when an appeals court convicted the former track star of murdering Steenkamp, a model who was in a toilet cubicle when her boyfriend fired through the door on Valentine's Day 2013.

Prosecutors said he killed her after an argument; Pistorius said he killed her by mistake, thinking there was an intruder in the house.

On Tuesday, Pistorius was granted bail of the equivalent of $692 in South African currency — he paid an amount 100 times higher when he first appeared in court for the shooting, though he was not placed under house arrest at that time.

Judge Aubrey Ledwaba also instructed that Pistorius be placed under electronic monitoring and may only leave his uncle's home between 7 a.m. and 12 p.m.

Bail is often denied in cases where a conviction is overturned for a harsher verdict, but Pistorius' compliance with previous bail and house arrest conditions may have influenced the judge's decision, said Manny Witz, a South African legal expert.

At the Constitutional Court, Witz said, Pistorius' lawyers could try to argue that the Supreme Court of Appeal convicted him of murder based on a factual finding when it questioned whether Pistorius really thought he was in danger on the night he shot Steenkamp.

In South Africa, appeals must be based on questions around the interpretation of the law, rather than questions based on facts surrounding a case.

Prof. Stephen Tuson at the Wits School of Law in Johannesburg said there was no guarantee that the Constitutional Court would hear Pistorius' case even though it has the authority to hear any matter, including those deemed to be non-constitutional.

The April 18 date for sentencing will allow the Constitutional Court time to decide whether it will take Pistorius' case, said prosecution spokesman Luvuyo Mfaku. The defense has 15 days to submit appeal papers to the court, he said.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel was doubtful about Pistorius' appeal prospects.

"We're not convinced that the accused has made out a good case and that his application to the Constitutional Court will be successful, but we acknowledge that he has the right to bring such an application," said Nel.

The appeals court had said that regardless of who was behind the door, Pistorius should have known someone could be killed if he fired multiple times. Under South African law, a person can be convicted of murder if he or she foresaw the possibility of someone dying through their actions and went ahead anyway.

Earlier, the state argued that Pistorius may try to flee, and asked for strict bail conditions but did not say he should be sent back to prison before sentencing. Under the bail terms, Pistorius may not travel further than a 12-mile (20-kilometer) radius from his uncle's mansion and must hand over his passport to the police.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, though a judge can reduce that sentence for what the law describes as exceptional circumstances.

Philippines police officers fired over 2009 massacre

The Philippines' police board has dismissed 21 officers for being "co-conspirators" in the country's worst political massacre six years ago when the son of a politician and his bodyguards shot dead 58 people, including 32 journalists.

The officers were dismissed for failing to stop the killings in the southern province of Maguindanao in November 2009, according to a police statement issued on Thursday.

All but one of the officers were found guilty of grave misconduct.

The remaining officer, Inspector Saudi Matabalao Mokamad, was found to have ignored the shooting he heard from the crime scene and not reporting it to his superiors.

He was dismissed on lesser charges.

"The 20 respondents were held liable for opting to become silent spectators to a crime unfolding before their very eyes," said the statement.

"Their inaction manifests complicity and unity of action to those who committed the abduction, and later the murders, themselves."

The main suspect accused of ordering the killings, Andal Ampatuan Sr, died of a heart attack in a government hospital in July this year.

His son went on trial in 2010 and is currently in jail.

The officers were accused as "co-conspirators" for setting up a checkpoint and for blocking the convoy of the victims who were on their way to file the certificate of candidacy of Vice Mayor Esmael Toto Mangudadatu, who was running against a member of the influential Ampatuan clan.

Al Jazeera's Marta Ortigas, reporting from Manila, said the case "was really a rivalry between two political clans".

She said 22 members of the rival family were among the dead.

---

"The justice system in the Philippines is renowned for going very, very slowly," she said.

"A case against a single suspect can take up to 10 years. In this case, there are over 100 named suspects all involved in one major trial. No convictions are expected any time soon."

The massacre, one of the world's deadliest attacks against media workers, saw some shot in their genitals before they were buried in a hilltop grave using an excavator.

Lawyers for the victims' families welcomed the dismissal of the police officers before adding that they were "very disappointed" with the pace of the dismissal proceedings.

"This is the very first time since the massacre six years ago that the victims have received some form of justice," they said.

The slow pace of the legal proceedings has angered the families of the victims and frustrated President Benigno Aquino, who took office in 2010 and promised a verdict before his term finishes in mid-2016.

All the accused police officers are currently detained at the Quezon City jail annex in Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig, facing multiple murder charges before a Quezon City regional trial court.

Lee Rigby Killer Adebolajo Sues Prison Service

Adebolajo was given a whole-life jail term

Michael Adebolajo claimed he had been assaulted by five officers at the high-security Belmarsh Prison.

The officers involved were suspended from work after the incident but were later told they had no case to answer.

A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesman said it will "robustly" defend the compensation claim.

He said: "The public will be rightly outraged at the thought of this man receiving compensation from the taxpayer and we robustly defend claims made against the Prison Service."

The MoJ said it has successfully defended two thirds of prisoner claims over the last three years.

Adebolajo was convicted last year, alongside Michael Adebowale, of murdering the 22-year-old soldier who was run over and hacked to death near Woolwich barracks in May 2013.

Adebolajo was condemned to die in prison with a whole-life term for the murder, while Adebowale was sentenced to life with a minimum 45 years.

India and Pakistan Will Resume High-Level Bilateral Talks

Contentious neighbors India and Pakistan are set to resume talks for the first time in three years, the two countries said Wednesday, signaling a major step forward in a peace process that has broken down several times in the past.

The “Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue” was announced in the Pakistani capital Islamabad by India’s Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj alongside Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan’s prime-ministerial adviser on foreign affairs.

Swaraj is in Islamabad for a regional peace summit called the “Heart of Asia” conference, and is the most senior Indian official to visit Pakistan since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office in May 2014. She also met Modi’s Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday.

The perennially frosty ties between the two South Asian powers, which have fought three wars — two over the disputed border region of Kashmir — since their independence from Britain in 1947, has seen unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation by successive governments. Pakistan insists that any talks should include Kashmir, while India’s focus remains on the cross-border terrorism it accuses Pakistan of fomenting.

The past year has been no different, with the relationship deteriorating amid periodic military firefights at the border and a previous round of high-level talks also called off earlier this year. There has been a thaw recently, however, with the national security advisers of both countries conducting a “cordial” meeting in Bangkok on Monday, soon after Modi and Sharif spokeon the sidelines of the Paris Climate Conference in late November.

Swaraj, for her part, earlier said it was time for the two nations to “display the maturity and self-confidence to do business with each other and strengthen regional cooperation,” adding that India is prepared to approach the dialogue at a pace “comfortable” to Pakistan.

“The entire world is waiting and rooting for a change,” she said. “Let us not disappoint them.”

Floods Hit Village Again As River Bursts Banks

A "multi-agency" response, which includes the military and the fire service, has begun amid concerns the latest flooding could endanger lives.

Cumbria Police said: "We are also warning any motorists not to drive unless it is an absolute emergency as the flood water can cause a great risk to people's safety.

"We want to urge the public not to approach or go near any flood water as it is extremely fast flowing and can be a threat to people's lives."

The military has been called in to the village to help deliver food and water.

Ken Pollock, a guest house owner in the village, told Sky News: "It (the flood water) is higher than it was previously.

"It was back to normal and then it started again tonight.

"Everyone was helping out, they got it all cleaned up and washed out."

Gary Wilson, who is the manager of The Inn on the Lake in the village, said people are "heartbroken", having started to "get on top" of the clean-up operat

He told Sky News there had been "torrential" rain since 5pm, with many homes and shops under two feet of water.

Mr Wilson, whose business was unaffected, has set up an emergency room where locals can have hot drinks and showers.

Cumbria County Council has said the damage from the weekend's flooding was on a scale never seen before, with the situation changing all the time.

Residents are being told to remain vigilant as more rain is forecast heading into Thursday, bringing the potential for further disruption across Cumbria, parts of Lancashire and areas of North Yorkshire.

In Cumbria, thousands of tonnes of debris has fallen on to roads, carriageways and bridges in landslides due to the record amount of rainfall.

Appleby also remains at risk of further flooding, with limited vehicle access through the town.

Figures from a rain gauge at Honister in the Lake District showed a UK record 341mm of rain fell in 24 hours at the weekend.

The average rainfall in Cumbria for December is 146.1mm, according to the Met Office.

Meanwhile, the Government has pledged £51m for homes and businesses affected by the floods.

Chancellor George Osborne said families will be able to claim up to £5,000 each to deal with the damage.

Are Australia's gun laws the solution for the US?

Those were the words of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard before he radically changed Australia's gun laws and - many believe - rid the country of gun violence on a large scale.

After another mass shooting in the US - the recent one in San Bernardino killed 14 and brought the number of mass shootings in that country to over 350 this year alone - America finds itself very far down that violent path. 

But could it change course the way Australia did?

In April 1996, 35 people were killed by a gunman, Martin Bryant, wielding semi-automatic weapons at a former prison colony and tourist attraction in Tasmania.

This became known as the Port Arthur massacre, and it was a turning point for Australia.

The event appalled and galvanised the nation, helping to push Australia to enact some of the most comprehensive firearm laws in the world.

President Barack Obama has often pointed to Australia as an example for the US to follow.

"Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said: 'Well, that's it, we're not seeing that again,' and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven't had a mass shooting since," he said last year.

So what exactly did Australia do, how did it work, and could it work in the US?

Drop in shootings

Less than two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the same sweeping gun laws banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns - weapons that can kill many people quickly.

They also put more hurdles between prospective gun owners and their weapons.

Australia has 28-day waiting periods, thorough background checks, and a requirement to present a "justifiable reason" to own a gun.

Unlike in the US, self-protection is not accepted as a justifiable reason to own a gun.

In the 19 years since the laws were passed, about one million semi-automatic weapons - roughly one third of the country's firearms - were sold back to the government and destroyed, nearly halving the number of gun-owning households in Australia.

The number of Australia's mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since. 

And although the laws were designed specifically to reduce mass shootings, the rates of homicide and suicide have also come down since 1996.

Philip Alpers, a professor at Sydney School of Public Health, has done studies showing that aside from the victims of the Port Arthur shooting, 69 gun homicides were recorded in 1996 compared with 30 in 2012. 

Despite the reduction in incidence though, gun violence has not disappeared in Australia. And gun ownership is actually on the rise.

Since 1996, Australians have been steadily replacing the outlawed firearms they sold back with legal ones, and gun ownership here has now risen back to pre-1996 levels. 

---

Guns per capita in Australia and US: 1996 vs now

Australia

• 1996: About 17.3 guns per 100 people
• 2007 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 15 guns per 100 people

United States

• 1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people 
• 2009 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people

Sources: AIC Australian institute of Criminology, Small Arms Survey, and US Dept of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

---

Australian firearms rights groups say that the laws go too far and restrict personal freedom. 

They argue that gun violence was on a downward trajectory before the 1996 laws were passed, and reject any link between lower incidence of gun deaths and the tighter legislation.

Diana Melham, executive director of the Sporting Shooters Australia Association in New South Wales, argues the 1996 laws fuelled a sense of alienation among gun owners, which, she says "rallied the shooters". 

The organisation, which is the country's largest gun lobby group, has grown rapidly since 1996 and its numbers are still on the rise.

But Tim Fischer, who was Prime Minister Howard's deputy in 1996 and instrumental in getting the National Firearms Agreement passed, argues the US should follow Australia's lead.

"Plain and simple, what we've done works," he told the BBC.

The big question

So could it work in the US?

The simple answer is - probably not.

Although Australia does have a long history of hunting and sport, there is no equivalent to America's Second Amendment right to bear arms here. 

Another significant difference is the speed of government action. In 1996 John Howard managed to get all six Australian states to agree to and pass uniform sweeping gun control legislation in just 12 days.

It is hard to fathom the US government ever being able to get all 50 states to agree to something, let alone act that quickly.

But according to Prof Alpers, the bigger difference is the cultural mindset.

"I don't for a moment think it would happen in the US," he says. "Australia already had a pre-disposition to doing something about it."

He explains that although by far the deadliest, the Port Arthur shooting was not the first Australia had experienced.

He says the country had lost nearly 150 people in the years running up to 1996 in mass shootings, and the national mood was changing.

"Port Arthur was the straw that broke the camel's back. You have to go back to those years to remember how visceral that backlash was." 

Mr Fischer is more optimistic. He believes meaningful change could come to the US, but only when a "silent majority" are "sprung into action". 

"Of course all mass shootings are a bridge too far," he says. "But there is going to be one that really tips the balance. Watch this space."

Hillary Clinton Says Donald Trump’s Muslim Proposal Harms U.S. Antiterror Efforts

WATERLOO, Iowa – Hillary Clinton’s campaign has used Donald J. Trump’s proposal to bar non-American Muslims from entering the United States as a fund-raising and organizing tool, selling a special edition “Love Trumps Hate” bumper sticker and texting supporters a link to a letter from Mrs. Clinton declaring her support for religious freedom.

But at a town-hall-style meeting here on Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton delivered her toughest and most somber critique yet of Mr. Trump’s plan. 

“It’s O.K. to be afraid. There’s no reason not to be afraid,” she told the crowd. “When bad things happen it does cause anxiety and fear, but then you pull yourself together and, especially if you want to be a leader of a country, you say, ‘What are we going to do about it? How are we going to be prepared?’”

“But instead of showing leadership, some of the candidates in this campaign are really resulting in ugly, hateful rhetoric,” she added. “Donald Trump, you know, he does traffic in prejudice and paranoia. It’s not only shameful, it’s dangerous.”

She said Mr. Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims “runs counter to what I, and others who have actually been in the Situation Room, making hard choices, know what we have to do.”

Mrs. Clinton had previously denounced Mr. Trump before quickly trying to link his opinions to the rest of the Republican field. But on Wednesday, she singled out Mr. Trump, saying he was harming the nation’s ability to fight the rise of the Islamic State.

“We have to enlist help from American Muslims, Muslims around the world, in defeating the radical jihadist and the hateful ideology,” she said. “Instead, Donald Trump is providing them with propaganda. He is playing right into their hands.”

“The vast majority of Muslims here and abroad are on our side in this fight,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “They are the primary victims of the attacks and the brutality coming from these terrorist organizations.”